RB>>> Russia wasn't Russia after WWI. Lenin gave up large swaths of RB>>> territorty to the Germans at Tannenberg. That was Lenin's method RB>>> to end the war and keep his own people quiet.

ak>> The USSR appeared only in 1923. Lenin had no choice when singing ak>> the peace treaty - the army almost stopped to exit and would not ak>> be able to resist either Germany or Poland.

RB> You conveniently forget the role Trotzky played in beating down RB> the "Whites". And "no choice"?? Just because the Tsar was a lousy RB> strategist and his generals incompetent doesn't mean Lenin could RB> have done no better, but he was more interested in establihing his RB> own power.

At that time Lenin had a good reason to expect Russian style revolutions across all Europe. So in "piece for any price" there was some calculation.

RB> As for "resistinbg Poland", you also conveniently forgt RB> the history of the country. Not Poland, but Germany declared war on RB> the Russians after the incompetent Tsar mobilized the armed forces RB> to help the Serbs.

I know history. Poland shamelessly used German's gains of Russia's territory, after Germany was defeated in WW1.

ak>> Hitler in Germany was inevitable -- such people always appear when ak>> a strong nation is greatly humiliated, as was Germany after WW1.

RB> Nice attempt at justification. Now just consider the situation if RB> Hitler had been assissinated in 1924. A replacement? Who?

Yes, by killing a man it is possible to prevent many things to happen. But killing does not cancel the phrase about inevitability. It just means that people must be killed in time. ;=)

ak>> The USSR and the Soviet ideology was the only chance to stop the ak>> Nazi Germany. Western impotent nations were worthless in WW2. They ak>> entered the war when Germany was actually defeated by the USSR.

RB> That old saw again. You and Ward should get together sometims and RB> slap each other on the back. Belgium and the USSR of 1940 RB> coud "surely" have defeated Hitler <laugh>.

Don't know what you mean.

RB>>>>> I suppose that's why there was a secret addendum to the RB>>>>> Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty allowing Germany and Russia to split RB>>>>> up Poland between themselves.

ak>>>> It depends from point of view. IMO Poland was captured by ak>>>> Hitler, but the USSR returned its own territories.

RB> "Point of view"? It's now availble as a black and white protocol. RB> Read it sometime to find out what really happened. Forget the RB> propaganda circulating in present Russia - but if you do, don't RB> talk about the facts. That could get you into prison or even RB> murdered.

Well, consider that situation, as it was:Hitler said to Stalin (via Ribbentrop), "I want to capture Poland for its bad behavior and return back old German territories. Would you like to take back your Russian old territories or I will capture them too?"

You of course think it would have been better if Stalin would said, "Oh, no! I can't take back old Russian territories because it is unlawful, so dear Adolf take them all!" ;=))

RB>>> Like the Crimea. Except that there was no subtrefuge.

ak>> There was a good subterfuge -- the Russian people referendum and ak>> the way Crimea appeared in Ukraine. The Crimeans started all this ak>> mess themselves after the coup in Kiev. Putin had no choice.

RB> Then Trump now has no choice but to invade Crimea, drive the RB> Russians out and restore the national borders of Ukraine. Yeah, RB> sure.

Let him help the Arabs. Then the main source of terror in the world will be eliminated, and the Americans again would be able to travel around the world without fear to be stubbed in all places available. ;-)